New Ulm weekly review., 1887-11-23
DRIVE WELLS.

The Recent Decision Of the United
States Supreme Court EffeCtually
Heads Off an Obnoxious System
of Extortion--HoW Green Over
reached Himself.
There is rejoicing among the farmers OF
the land says the Chicago Herald, at any
rate rejoicing among that portion OF the
agricultural community which has been
afflicted by the clamor OF ''eirive-welf'
fends. Nelson w. Green, the alleged i'm
yentor OF the device, obtained his patent
Jan. IA, 1868, which was reissued
May 8, 1871, upon an amended
claim. Green was not slow in utilizing
his patent. He not only sold state, but
county and township rights at enormous
prices, which the purchasers OF these pat
ent rights could well afford to pay, because
the ruling price to be paid by /. farmer for
t. well sunk by the simple contrivance
was $40 for well OF diameter OF one
and a quarter inches. There was a slid
ing. or rather rising scale, governed by the
diameter and depth OF the WELL the power
by which it was to be opera ated and the
yield OF water per minute, until in some
instances a price of S4OO was reached.
This amount exceeded by far the price for
an arteaian well OF the same capacity, and
was ten fold that OF the ordinary stone
well. The price OF $40 for the smal-sized
well, while not much in itself, was by far
too much for the service rem
dered. No farmer would have paid it had
he not been forced to by combination of
the patent-risht holders with the drivers"
The usual proceeding was that the "driv-
ers' would put in the well for a moderate
amount, and suhse,s uently the owner OF
the right would come along and claim his
royalty, which he was in every case able
TN ~ nNf hna I,
numerous court decisions. All these
decisions are now worthless, since
the supreme court of the United
State has declared the drive.well
patent invalid. This last decision was
reached on the ground that the invention
was used in public at Cortland by others
than Green more than two years before the
application for patent was made-a fact
which, under the law, is fatal to the patents
validity.
Had the patentee and the men to whom
he sold his rights been less grasping they
might have enjoyed princely INCOME for
the time the patent lasted. but tler ava.
rice caused the collapse. The magnitudeof
the case will be understood when it is stat
ed that the number OF drive wells in the
country reaches nearly a million, about
seventy-6ve thousand being in the
State OF New York. The patentees in
Minnesota we're worse than those OF any
other state. Quite recently they sent cir
culars to owners Of driven wells that in
tringers on the Green patent must pay $40
on certain date. Those who did not
comply with this cool demand were mott.
fed that they must pay S36.5O-$30 as
the figure reached by trebling the dam
ages, Sc court costs and SO cents for pest
age.
Former decisions. even one included by
the highest tribunal proved to be in favor
n q va ont tnnr l,,o 1>aa, %l,o
subject OF extensive litigation. It was first
held valid by Judge Benedict, in 1876, in
the leading case OF Andrews aga inst Carmau.
This decision was followed by nine others,
rendered by Judges Dillon. Nelson, Gres-
ham, Blatchford, Nixon. Wheeler, Nc
Creary and Shipman. In two OF the recent
cases-Andrews against Cone and Andrews
against Hovey-the patent was for the
first time held invalid by Judges Love,
Shiras and Nelson. OF ths courts below, on
the same grounds given by the United
States supreme court decision in the
Hovey case. The later decision. OF
course, overrides the one in the IA
the October term, 1856. In che Eames
case no such testimony as in the Hovey
and Cone cases was introduced. The fact
that the invention had been in public use
with the knowledge and cons, It OF Green,
for m ore than two years prior to the fl
ing OF his apple alton, rendered the patent
invalid. OF course this decision nom
suits all claims now pending in the courts
all over the land against alleged infringers
OF the patent. The grasping disposition OF
the paten tees and the continuous ltigations
combined to make the Green patent more
odious than any other but the task OF
fighting it was tremendous. 1t was finally
accomplished by q comparatively unknown
lawyer-Jed Lake of Independence Iowa
who worked for a fee OF $40 q day, .and
worked perhaps two hundred days on the
case. At least 100000 has been spent
by both parties to the litigation just ended.
Those who have paid the exacting royalty
have. OF course, no means OF recovery,
unless they can prove fraud or false repre-
tatiOns.